Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Volume Message-ID: <1105@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 21:42:39 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1105 Posted: Tue Jun 18 21:42:39 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 06:09:44 EDT References: <4450@mit-eddie.UUCP> <353@mhuxr.UUCP> <1099@pyuxd.UUCP> <356@mhuxr.UUCP> Distribution: net.music Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 88 >>> > Doug Alan >>> > I despise acoustic instruments. >>> Marcel Simon >>> I agree with you 100%. Keep up the good work! >>That's a lie, Marcel! You believe that rhythm is "where it's at". Which is >>it, Marcel? Which of you, Doug or you, has the absolute answer? I've got >>to know!!!! --Rich Rosen > Well, I would not want to keep you in suspense, would I? (:-) > > Actually, I meant that. Alan started from an axiom, to wit, "volume is > the most important" and the rest of his argument follows from there. If you > accept his axiom, there is no flaw in his reasoning. So he is right. > And I agree with him. > > The key here, obviously, is to accept his axiom. Since axioms, by definition, > cannot be proven or disproven, they are either all true or all false. > I'd rather take the approach that they are all true. Even if they contradict each other? Volume AND rhythm (your fave) are BOTH the *single* most important element in music? Remind me not to take your logic class. :-) > In appreciating something as subjective as music, all we can have are > opinions. They can be invalid if they are not consistent with their own > assumptions. Barring that, they are valid. Naturally, my assumptions will be > radically different from someone else's. The result is passionate argument. I > happen to like passionate argument, whether on the subject of sports, > music, or whatever. Passionate argument has its virtues to be sure. But you claimed in all your articles that YOUR particular opinion (about rhythm) was not just opinion, but fact. This is where we parted company. Rhythm is most important TO YOU. Good. As long as we can agree on that. (Uh, oh, agreement. Better get the flame thrower...) > Controversy tends to lead to ad hominem flames, unfortunately. I don't quite > understand where the "I don't agree with you, therefore you are an asshole" > logic pattern comes from, but it does have inhibitory results. Who wants to > get into a shouting match with someone who jumps straight to parents' marital > status, total number of brain cells, etc. Much less fun. I didn't see any such flames as you describe (well, some, but not from my corner). Telling a person that what they've proposed is balderdash does not constitute ad hominem attacking in my book, but tell that to some people. > This net is an exciting forum for free exchange of opinions, mine, Rosen's, > Alan's or anyone else's. It is exciting because all these opinions > ultimately enrich our perspective on the whole of music, which none of us > can grasp. No, I'm not going to talk about subgroups and how they diminish the enriched perspective that Marcel talks about above. ["BUT YOU JUST DID!" -ED.] [SHHH!] > Now, on Alan's axiom on volume: > It makes good sense. After all, music with no volume is inaudible. Inaudible > music may not even exist (that is a debate for net.philosophy. If a piece > is played in the desert by a deaf musician, does it exist? :-) Music is just a label we put on a particular type of artistic endeavor, almost always meaning that that endeavor is in the realm of sound. Music that does not involve sound could thus be said not to be music but perhaps some other form of art. Even Cage's infamous 4'33" is specifically designed to make use of the sound remaining in the concert hall or wherever after you've gotten past the silence. > When Alan speaks of "the louder the better," I assume he means the greater > the dynamic range between loud and soft notes. Don't count on it. "The louder the better" is usually the fourth line in a song by Iron Maiden or Twisted Sister. > Since great dynamic > range implies great rhythmic diversity, Alan's axiom thus rejoins mine. > No wonder I agree with him! Say what? Could someone versed in the foundations of propositional logic run that by me again? Marcel, he was only kidding, dammit! > Maybe he an I can get together and form a band. Let's see, it would have > no drum machines and no acoustic intruments. I bet we'd make great music! What's a non-acoustic instrument? (If you mean "electronic", you're going to run out of percussion and rhythm awful fast, Marcel, since percussion instruments other than drum machines qualify as acoustic instruments. Oh well, it was a nice project while it lasted... :-) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr